Lying and use of fake papers during war

[Tietjen]

As to Judith (I must confess not having read it…only heard what is read at Mass…but …)

Here this may be helpful for you:

“Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel…”

–Pope Benedict XVI Verbum Domini

I agree of course with the Holy Father; however, at the same time, I question whether or not this means that God’s standard of what is and isn’t sin depends upon the era (time period). God doesn’t change, right? God is outside of time, right? What is sinful yesterday, in God’s eyes, can be assumed to be sinful today, right? Therefore, assuming that these questions I ask are true, it would be logical to believe that if lying today (under all circumstances) is a sin, then it must have been a sin back in the day of Judith. Yet, Judith found favor with God for the actions that she had done in defending the Jewish people. What did she do? She lied. So, what does this say to the topic we are discussing?

As to Jesus in John 7:2-10

I would direct you to the Navarre Bible Commentary. The Jews who lived far away went usually for the feast via caravan. Jesus did not want to go at this time with the crowd…it will give various reasons there if you read the Navarre. He did not leave with the caravan …but remained in Galilee after they left. Later went up privately. There was no lie. I will also note that the RSV mentions there a variant that other ancient authorities add the word “yet” in verse 8.

Respectfully, commentaries are not inspired and therefore can and do counter one another. Comparing the overall commentary found in the NAB to that of the Navarre will prove this. Therefore, while I’ll read the various commentaries on any given verse(s) I don’t hold them as being inerrant. Secondly, we assume that caravan’s may have played a role in this situation but we do not know this to be fact simply because it is not mentioned in Scripture or for that matter Sacred Tradition. Has the Magisterium shed any light on this? I don’t know… therefore, unless “one of the three legs of the stool” says otherwise we can speculate that is the best we can hope for. As for the adding of the word “yet” to verse 8, what should we do to determine which version of the Bible should be used when reading the verse? I attempted to use the Clementine Vulgate but I do not speak enough Latin to determine this. So I went to the next best version, the Douay-Rheims and the word “yet” is not found in or around verse 8.

[2] Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand. [3] And his brethren said to him: Pass from hence, and go into Judea; that thy disciples also may see thy works which thou dost. [4] For there is no man that doth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, manifest thyself to the world. [5] For neither did his brethren believe in him.
[6] Then Jesus said to them: My time is not yet come; but your time is always ready. [7] The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth: because I give testimony of it, that the works thereof are evil. [8] Go you up to this festival day, but I go not up to this festival day: because my time is not accomplished. [9] When he had said these things, he himself stayed in Galilee. [10] But after his brethren were gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but, as it were, in secret.

(as to lying being a sin…see the CCC quotes above…it is a sin…it is condemned in its very nature and I will note too on a side note but germaine to the thread-- that one could argue as to what constitutes a lie in a given event…and what is rather careful language or good mental reservation or other things…)

I have seen the CCC quotes that you have pointed out and yes, if you pull out specific phrases it can be said that lying is always a sin. Thank you for pointing out however, the CCC addresses (to some extent) that there are other options which should not be considered lying and therefore may not be sinful. For example, the “mental reservation” argument. Please correct me if I am wrong… this is the technique of reserving (holding back) certain speech from an untruthful statement and thus rendering it truthful. For example, if Nazis come to a home and ask the home owners if they are hiding any Jews in their home, the home owners can verbally say, “No, there are no jews in this house…” but then continue the statement in their minds, “… that I want to tell you about.” Somehow, “mental reservation” claims that this is not a lie since they finished the phrase mentally. I believe that I would need to see something from the Holy See stating that this is an example of speaking the truth. Until then, I respectfully disagree with those who will say that all lying is a sin but mental reservation is not sinful.

 

[Infiltrator]

:ALL US soldiers are trained (to varying degrees) to take life in defense of country. Am I to assume that since they are trained to take life, you are actually saying that soldiers cannot be Catholics? I ask because the U.S. has a volunteer Armed Forces and the men and women all know that they may be called upon to take a life and still they volunteer. So, in your estimation, are they then choosing “the law of the nation above Gods law” by volunteering in the first place?

Spot on. Until they put the law of God above the Law of man, they are sinners. The fact that they plan to continue sinning in this way means they are unrepentant sinners. Until they repent, they are not right with God.

:
See the response two up. AND, if soldeirs cannot be both Catholic and willing to take a life, it seems likely that you would feel the same about a police officer… that is unless a criminal has a gun to your head.

It is exactly the same with a Police officer. Whether a person has a gun to my head or not has nothing to do with the bible saying “thou shalt not kill”.

Let’s put it this way

We as Catholics are called to live a Christlike life. We can kill as many people as Christ did. We may fight our enemies as violently as Christ did the roman invaders. Nothing has changed.

 

[Infiltrator]

What?! Apples & oranges here.

Not at all. The person that lies commits a sin. The person that plans to lie in the future is an unrepentant sinner. They have not realised the true nature of the sin.

The homosexual is a sinner (if they commit sodomy). The person that plans to commit sodomy in the future by marrying their gay partner is planning to sin. They are unrepentant sinners in the exact same way and they also have not realised the true nature of the sin.

But can you be a Catholic and an Intelligence officer if you must lie in the course of your job?

No. lying is a sin. If part of your job description is to sin (ie lie) a Catholic cannot do that job and keep true with God, that is, keep the promise not to lie.

 

[Tietjen]

Spot on. Until they put the law of God above the Law of man, they are sinners. The fact that they plan to continue sinning in this way means they are unrepentant sinners. Until they repent, they are not right with God.

It is exactly the same with a Police officer. Whether a person has a gun to my head or not has nothing to do with the bible saying “thou shalt not kill”.

Let’s put it this way

We as Catholics are called to live a Christlike life. We can kill as many people as Christ did. We may fight our enemies as violently as Christ did the roman invaders. Nothing has changed.

Respectfully, do you come to these conclusions on your own understanding or do you believe that the Church teaches that Soldiers and Police Officers cannot be Catholics (at least in good standing)?

 

[Tietjen]

Not at all. The person that lies commits a sin. The person that plans to lie in the future is an unrepentant sinner. They have not realised the true nature of the sin.

The homosexual is a sinner (if they commit sodomy). The person that plans to commit sodomy in the future by marrying their gay partner is planning to sin. They are unrepentant sinners in the exact same way and they also have not realised the true nature of the sin.

So then telling your child that there is a Santa Claus (and intending to show evidence of this in the future by way of eating cookies and drinking milk and leaving reminants of same for the child to find on Christmas morning) is = to a homosexual act and or intended marriage?

Respectfully, the Church hasn’t required a vow or a promise that I not lie. Assuming that you are correct in believing that all lying and killing is sinful, you might have a point in your suggesting that there will be no unrepentant soldiers or police officers (for simply doing what is required of them in their chosen professions) in Heaven. However, I do not believe that you will find that the Church feels this way; at least not the Catholic Church.

[/QUOTE]

 

[DaveBj]

Jesus told us that being a Christian is hard. It is a narrow path to heaven, we will suffer and be persecuted. I’ve never found this path to be easy.

And I remember an 80’s movie about a strip club called porkies, but, cannot imagine what that has with patients.

I’m not sure, but I think that “porkies” is New Zealand slang for police. The poster who used that work is a New Zealander.

 

[Bookcat]

I agree of course with the Holy Father; however, at the same time, I question whether or not this means that God’s standard of what is and isn’t sin depends upon the era (time period). God doesn’t change, right? God is outside of time, right? What is sinful yesterday, in God’s eyes, can be assumed to be sinful today, right? Therefore, assuming that these questions I ask are true, it would be logical to believe that if lying today (under all circumstances) is a sin, then it must have been a sin back in the day of Judith. Yet, Judith found favor with God for the actions that she had done in defending the Jewish people. What did she do? She lied. So, what does this say to the topic we are discussing?

Read again Pope Benedict XVI (he even mentions trickery there) …it is not about certain sinful things not being objectively evil…but that about after the fall and the corruption of Man how God progressively revealed …and slowly worked on Man …(just like the case of Moses allowing for Divorce)…You may discuss it with him when you are next in Rome… .

catholic.com/quickquestions/how-can-i-defend-the-book-of-judith-against-fundamentalist-charges You can find other articles there on Judith perhaps and also on lying.

Respectfully, commentaries are not inspired and therefore can and do counter one another. Comparing the overall commentary found in the NAB to that of the Navarre will prove this. Therefore, while I’ll read the various commentaries on any given verse(s) I don’t hold them as being inerrant. Secondly, we assume that caravan’s may have played a role in this situation but we do not know this to be fact simply because it is not mentioned in Scripture or for that matter Sacred Tradition. Has the Magisterium shed any light on this? I don’t know… therefore, unless “one of the three legs of the stool” says otherwise we can speculate that is the best we can hope for. As for the adding of the word “yet” to verse 8, what should we do to determine which version of the Bible should be used when reading the verse? I attempted to use the Clementine Vulgate but I do not speak enough Latin to determine this. So I went to the next best version, the Douay-Rheims and the word “yet” is not found in or around verse 8.

The Church teaches that lying is a sin. Jesus did not sin. So however you wish to approach the text or whatever materials you wish to research…he did not lie there.

I have seen the CCC quotes that you have pointed out and yes, if you pull out specific phrases it can be said that lying is always a sin. Thank you for pointing out however, the CCC addresses (to some extent) that there are other options which should not be considered lying and therefore may not be sinful. For example, the “mental reservation” argument. Please correct me if I am wrong… this is the technique of reserving (holding back) certain speech from an untruthful statement and thus rendering it truthful. For example, if Nazis come to a home and ask the home owners if they are hiding any Jews in their home, the home owners can verbally say, “No, there are no jews in this house…” but then continue the statement in their minds, “… that I want to tell you about.” Somehow, “mental reservation” claims that this is not a lie since they finished the phrase mentally. I believe that I would need to see something from the Holy See stating that this is an example of speaking the truth. Until then, I respectfully disagree with those who will say that all lying is a sin but mental reservation is not sinful.

Mental reservation is of two kinds…one is yes a lie…the other is not. The Holy See does not address many many things…they are left to orthodox moral theology…and the Holy See may have in the past. Certainly the lines in the CCC refer to some kind of speech that is not a lie but is “discrete language”. But yes I imagine there is “discrete language” that is not a mental reservation.And again it may be too that some things that have may look to some to be lying is not per se lying by definition… similar to the fact that certain actions are not “objectively” theft …though they have a similar appearance of such (see CCC)

 

[Catholic90]

It is exactly the same with a Police officer. Whether a person has a gun to my head or not has nothing to do with the bible saying “thou shalt not kill”.

Let’s put it this way

We as Catholics are called to live a Christlike life. We can kill as many people as Christ did. We may fight our enemies as violently as Christ did the roman invaders. Nothing has changed.

One can defend one’s life or the lives of others they are trying to protect -ergo police officers trying to protect the community at large.

The commandment is closer to saying one should not murder, not kill. Killing in self-defense is ok.

Otherwise you are saying the criminals may take up guns and knives and go on a rampage, killing anyone who gets in their way, but it would be a sin for a police officer to take the criminals down with a bullet and protect the innocent.

We are not called to be doormats.

 

[Catholic90]

The Catholic Church has designated the following as patron saints of police officers:

1. 
   *]Police officers Michael the Archangel
   *]Police, Italian Mary, Faithful Virgin
   *]Police, Spanish Our Lady of the Pillar
   *]Police, Spanish, armed The Guardian Angels
   *]Police, local, municipal Sebastian
   
   So therefore, one could logically follow that one can be a Catholic and a police officer, since the Church herself has designated patron saints for them!

 

[Bookcat]

So I went to the next best version, the Douay-Rheims and the word “yet” is not found in or around verse 8.

PS: the “yet” is a variant. To see it one needs to go read all the ancient manuscripts not translations.

 

[Leegal]

Some saints have used fake papers during war.

Why is this not lying?

The CCC says this about lying:

“A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”

To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.

By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity.

Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision.

Do you mean the faking of papers to avoid an invading persecutor? Are we speaking of those who used faked paper to avoid death or to flee the country?

There are no absolutes. In fact, I would weigh not trying, by any means necessary, to avoid detection by those who would want to kill you to be a far greater error than lying or using faked papers to avoid detection. You do have a responsibility to preserve your own life.

I think the qualifier here is in that you said “during war.” No, they have not lied in a sinful sense. They have avoided detection in order to preserve their lives or the lives of others – a primary instinct is to survive. That would include those who helped make up false papers for others, even if they themselves were not the object of imminent harm.

 

[Bookcat]

I believe that I would need to see something from the Holy See stating that this is an example of speaking the truth. Until then, I respectfully disagree with those who will say that all lying is a sin but mental reservation is not sinful.

I will note too that the Holy See did intervene in the discussion of mental reservations back in 1679 where “strict” mental reservations (not broad mental reservations) were condemned (as formulated by Sanchez) by Innocent XI.

 

[Leegal]

That whole “right to know” thing was removed from the Catechism.

It is NOT part of Catholic teaching.

A lie is always a sin. It may be mortal or venial, but, it is always a sin. No nazis or 300 lb intruders can change that.

I respectfully disagree. If a parent told a 300 lbs. intruder where the son was they would be committing a sin because he/she helped someone harm the son. I already commented on Nazi invaders. War is special circumstances

I think clarification from a priest or spiritual adviser would be helpful. .

 

[Leegal]

Spot on. You cannot be a Catholic and knowingly lie, plan to lie and not repent of it. It is no different than being a homosexual and expecting to be able to enter into the sacrament of marriage.
You cannot be an intelligence officer and a Catholic if you put the law of the nation above Gods law.
You cannot be an undercover officer and a Catholic if you put the law of the nation above Gods law.
You cannot be a member of the CIA and a Catholic if you put the law of the nation above Gods law.
You cannot be a soldier and a Catholic if you put the law of the nation above Gods law and take a life.
You cannot be a police officer and a Catholic if you put the law of the nation above Gods law.

Disagree. All of the above mentioned professions take an oath of office or swear an oath of duty. The Church holds oaths of office or duty (sworn to before God) to be equally binding and obligatory. A Catholic can join the service or become a police officer. However, if conscience tells him not to, then he should not. But, if he takes the oath he is bound by it.

In early Church history, only the Church could give an oath. That does not mean they don’t take them seriously today.

 

[VonDerTann]

From the Catechism at 2489:

“No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”

---

The Catholic Church simply never says, “it is always a sin to lie.”

Although the Catechism makes the statement that lying by its nature is to be condemned, that does not mean lying is always a sin.

There is actually a huge difference.

The Church has had, and continues to have, many opportunities to declare, “lying is always a sin.” The CCC could say exactly that. It does not. The CCC lists various sins. Lying is not among those activities identified as sins.

Moreover, the CCC could have said, “lying is to be always condemned” and added nothing further.

But again, that is not what the CCC says.

Instead, it says that the right to the truth is “not unconditional.” It says that no one is bound to reveal the truth to those who have no right to know it. It adds qualifiers about those who do not have to reveal truth (i.e. soldiers, lawyers).

The Church IMNO is not, and never will, say, “go ahead and lie.”

But by condemning lying, but also allowing deceit, qualifying the right to know the truth, etc., the Church is making plain that open lying – while not be be across-the-board condoned – is also not necessarily sinful. The CCC is not a primer for all of the moral questions which will ever arise in one’s lifetime, and it does not purport to be.

And it never says, “lying is always a sin.”

 

[Cristiano]

Castello, what “authority of the Church” are you referring to? I’ve already given you an exact reference to the Catechism which says that the to the truth is not absolute, but that we mst conform our lives to Jesus’ message of fraternal love…

You are making a false statement. The quote that you refer too does not say that truth is not absolute. On the contrary the Church teaches that truth is absolute and to deny that is to support the heresy of modernism.

From the Catechism at 2489:

“No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”…

First, this statement does not imply that it is fine to lie, it simply says that you do not have the obligation to share the truth. It is not a two way street, there are other alternatives. Second, this paragraph of the CCC has been correct in the present edition and the reference to the right to the truth has been removed.

…The Catholic Church simply never says, “it is always a sin to lie.”

I guess that you pick only the paragraphs that support your opinion but you blatantly keep disregarding the ones that have already been offered to you:

CCC 2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. the deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. the culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

John 14:6:* Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life." * Lying, denial of the truth is denial of Jesus.

 

[VonDerTann]

I’m sorry, Christiano, it is you who keeps disregarding the CCC’s statements with respect to the right to truth not being absolute, and the lack of entitlement of others to know information.

John 14:6 does not say, “never lie.” Jesus’ words do not support the statement that “when you lie you deny Me.”

The Catholic Church has had ample opportunity to declare, “all lying is a sin.” It has never done so.

The CCC does not so state, and instead places all sorts of qualifications on recipients’ right to know information. The CCC also expressly states that the right to truth is not unconditional.

Let us also recall that the CCC is not the Church. It is merely one writing.

Jesus never said, “all lies are sinful.”

However, the Bible is full of instances where deception, lies, etc. are allowed, if not rewarded by God (Judith in the camp of Holofernes jumps to mind).

No Pope has ever declared ex cathedra that lying is always a sin.

To say that “the Church teaches that all lying is always sinful” is therefore theologically unsound.

 

[Cristiano]

I’m sorry, Christiano, it is you who keeps disregarding the CCC’s statements with respect to the right to truth not being absolute, and the lack of entitlement of others to know information…

I think that we keep missing each other on this point and now I know why. I assume that in your post you meant "I’ve already given you an exact reference to the Catechism which says that the right to the truth is not absolute. In reality you wrote “I’ve already given you an exact reference to the Catechism which says that the to the truth is not absolute” where it is missing the word “right”. I also read it as in “I’ve already given you an exact reference to the Catechism which says that the truth is not absolute” where I ignored the words “the to” because I assumed that it was extra typing.

I am not discuss the rest because I think that your request of an ex-cathedra about the sinfulness of lying is absurd. If we stick only to what we received ex-cathedra then we have a lot of issues with sacred tradition.

 

[Bookcat]

The Catechism certainly presents the Teaching of the Church.

CCC 2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.

(sin in condemned…virtue is praised…“by its very nature” means well exactly that)

The other statements in the CCC are not about lying…it nowhere permits lying. Rather they are about not saying all that one knows or using discreet language etc. Not lying.

 

[Infiltrator]

Otherwise you are saying the criminals may take up guns and knives and go on a rampage, killing anyone who gets in their way, but it would be a sin for a police officer to take the criminals down with a bullet and protect the innocent.

Yes. That is correct. They cannot shoot the person and take them down as you put it. That would be taking a life. They can clear the area, surround the person. There are other ways of stopping someone that are non-lethal.